Virgin Trains West Coast - London to Scotland via Birmingham - A Complete Failure?

[higthomas]

Prior to the December 2013 timetable change I used the route only once and it was a single Class 221. Since then, the service has improved massively with me always booking myself on to a Class 390. I would be very hostile to undoing the progress that has been made and would suggest going even further by giving London Euston a fast direct service to Edinburgh Waverley. Not much chance of that happening when both mainlines are controlled by the same two companies...

I somehow think that's really not the main reason that particular idea isn't happening...

 

[thealexweb]

I somehow think that's really not the main reason that particular idea isn't happening...

I realise the WCML journey time would never match that of the ECML, but I think it would be brought down to near the five hour mark. There should at least be a feasibility study in to it. The ratio of Glasgow to Edinburgh services on the WCML is broken.

 

[Chrism20]

I realise the WCML journey time would never match that of the ECML, but I think it would be brought down to near the five hour mark. There should at least be a feasibility study in to it. The ratio of Glasgow to Edinburgh services on the WCML is broken.

Using the same stopping pattern as the Glasgow services you could easily get Euston to Edinburgh under five hours. Euston to Carlisle is 3h16m and the difference between Carlisle and Edinburgh instead of Glasgow is only eight minutes and thats with the stop at Haymarket.

Doing that though would involve more trains, more paths etc and thats just not possible at the moment. It always surprised me that there was only an hourly service up to Lancashire and Scotland. Same with Liverpool only being hourly but again I'm only basing that on what I've seen rather than figures etc.

As I live in Scotland I think the changes that have been made have been good as it has meant more seats, better fares (Most of the time) and another option. I can see why some of the guys further South are peeved off though - It's not nice being cooped up in a voyager and having to stand for a couple of hours.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I realise the WCML journey time would never match that of the ECML, but I think it would be brought down to near the five hour mark. There should at least be a feasibility study in to it. The ratio of Glasgow to Edinburgh services on the WCML is broken.

Four hours, surely? It could be done in 4.5 hours today easily.
The West Coast could be easily competitive with the East Coast, but since BR days it's Euston-Glasgow and King's Cross-Edinburgh.
The IEP programme will give another boost to the ECML.
Edinburgh is getting a better indirect WC service (not before time).
The way DfT specifies the franchises, and the provision of rolling stock, make it unlikely that Euston-Edinburgh will be offered.
The restriction to tilt stock on the WCML is another factor, and there aren't enough Pendolinos to offer the service.
The WCML RUS did muse over the opportunity to send more trains to Edinburgh, but said that could only be done by diverting services away from Glasgow.
It could be an Open Access option though, maybe more acceptable than duplicating services on the ECML.
Then there's HS2. At some point an hour will be cut from Euston-Scotland times when it opens.

 

[sprinterguy]

Four hours, surely? It could be done in 4.5 hours today easily.

I certainly hope that is what was meant, under 5 hours London - Glasgow was possible with 110mph locos and hauled stock, so if that time couldn't be bettered to Edinburgh nowadays I'd be astonished.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It always surprised me that there was only an hourly service up to Lancashire and Scotland.

That's a good deal more than the route used to see just a decade ago, although there seems to have been an hourly service as far as Preston. The clockface hourly service between Euston and Glasgow has been quite a dramatic step up for the route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ratio of Glasgow to Edinburgh services on the WCML is broken.

I'd be inclined to agree, and suggest sending all the Euston-Brum-Scotland services to Edinburgh rather than Glasgow, with Glasgow passengers changing at Preston into the Trent Valley Glasgow service.

 

[Chrism20]

That's a good deal more than the route used to see just a decade ago, although there seems to have been an hourly service as far as Preston. The clockface hourly service between Euston and Glasgow has been quite a dramatic step up for the route.

Yeah I was actually speaking with someone the other day at work (I'm working in Preston at the moment) and they said the same that there used to be a lot only went as far as Preston and the odd one to Lancaster.

I suppose when you factor in the King's Cross to Glasgow Central services that also used to run the service pattern (On Glasgow to London) wasn't too bad. Obviously there is now only one of them per day now.

Definitely a big improvement.

 

[yorksrob]

This is true. My regular journey between London and Lancaster in the nineties more often than not involved a change at Crewe or Preston.

 

[Chrism20]

I'd be inclined to agree, and suggest sending all the Euston-Brum-Scotland services to Edinburgh rather than Glasgow, with Glasgow passengers changing at Preston into the Trent Valley Glasgow service.

Good idea, the only thing with that is people will start moaning that they have taken the direct (No change) service away. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Hourly Edinburgh to Birmingham and beyond does appeal to me though.

 

[Starmill]

I think a proposed plan was to even out the service Wigan Northwards by having Soctland services from Manchester 2:1 Edinbrugh:Glasgow

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'd be inclined to agree, and suggest sending all the Euston-Brum-Scotland services to Edinburgh rather than Glasgow, with Glasgow passengers changing at Preston into the Trent Valley Glasgow service.

Good idea, the only thing with that is people will start moaning that they have taken the direct (No change) service away. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Hourly Edinburgh to Birmingham and beyond does appeal to me though.

The only problem with that would be that to make it at all attractive you'd need to re-do the timetable, as on current timings the connection at Preston would be about 50 minutes northbound (excluding the TPE services which are slightly sporadic) and 40 minutes southbound...

I think a proposed plan was to even out the service Wigan Northwards by having Soctland services from Manchester 2:1 Edinbrugh:Glasgow

Yes, to an extent that's what exists now and that's probably the best way of doing it. I wouldn't be against a rejig of the VT service proposed above, but I wouldn't favour culling Glasgow-Birmingham direct via Preston altogether, it wouldn't work and would be rather unpopular. Instead I'd focus on writing the TPE Manchester and VT Birmingham timetables so as best to serve the flows needed, instead of doing it purely on alterations and balance. That way Glasgow keeps some of its Birmingham trains, Edinburgh gets perhaps a fairer deal, and Manchester services are utilised as best they can be, rather than just plugging gaps.

 

[Chrism20]

The only problem with that would be that to make it at all attractive you'd need to re-do the timetable, as on current timings the connection at Preston would be about 50 minutes northbound (excluding the TPE services which are slightly sporadic) and 40 minutes southbound....

Yes maybe not one of the best ideas, Preston is one very cold station at times even in May.

I found this on the BBC regarding passenger numbers on the route. I would have thought that passenger numbers between Edinburgh and New Street were more than 50,000 a year. In contrast there were 284,021 flew between Edinburgh and Birmingham last year.

Virgin Pendolino train
Virgin Trains has reported a surge in cross-border rail travel following investment in additional seating capacity.
The West Coast Main Line operator said passenger numbers on its Anglo-Scottish services rose by 11% last year.
The rise came after Virgin made an additional 3,000 seats available every weekday.
Virgin said its trains now accounted for more than a fifth of journeys made between Glasgow and London.
It added that the figure was significantly up on 2008, when fewer than one in 10 journeys were made by train.
Virgin based its comparison on CAA data on air travel between Glasgow International and the London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, London City and Stansted.
line
ANALYSIS
Douglas Fraser, BBC Scotland business and economy editor
Virgin Trains may have been helped by pricing at its airborne rival, with the end of direct bmi competition to British Airways on the Glasgow-Heathrow route.
Air capacity between London and north-west England has also been affected by the rail-based alternative.
In addition, these figures reflect the extraordinary passenger growth across Britain's rail network, even through the recession and years of squeezed household income.
The rail operators will argue that's the benefit of private sector discipline and their marketing initiative. It may also be that investment in the West Coast and other lines by Network Rail has made the train a more reliable option.
But it's not always comfortable, with trains getting so busy. And if growth continues at the rate being reported by Virgin Trains, it's going to make the case stronger for building a high speed line from London, and not stopping until the track reaches Scotland's central belt.
Speed would be nice to have, but it is capacity that will be needed, and probably it will be needed long before such a line can be built.
line
Virgin's overall Anglo-Scottish figures include routes which do not cross the border, such as London to Preston.
However, the company said cross-border services performed particularly strongly, with Glasgow-London passenger numbers increasing by 18% to just over 600,000 last year.
The company said that its market share was also increasing on the Edinburgh-Birmingham corridor.
Last year, passenger numbers on that route rose year-on-year by 34% to 50,000.
Virgin said capacity was increased by a change in rolling stock in December 2013, which saw some five-carriage Super Voyager trains working the Anglo-Scottish route replaced by nine or 11-carriage Pendolinos.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30768932

 

[MK Tom]

In terms of MKC-EUS Virgin services, when does the Liverpool service pass through MKC? Taking out the recently added Crewe stop and introducing an MKC one might provide a better timed Virgin to London, as well as connecting MK to Runcorn and Liverpool. Crewe has three other Virgins to Euston already for a medium sized town, plus the LM service.

From an MK looking north point of view, the direct links to stations north of Crewe are cool but the fact that changing at Crewe is faster kind of negates that. It does give us a direct link to Sandwell and Wolverhampton though.

Also, for those saying MK does ok with LM services, yes this is kind of true with the XX.06 going WFJ and EUS only, the XX.15 going EUS non-stop and the XX.41 going BLY, LBZ and EUS only, but it's not quite so good coming back in the evening when every LM service is a completely rammed stop-everywhere jobbie on a 350/2.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

In terms of MKC-EUS Virgin services, when does the Liverpool service pass through MKC? Taking out the recently added Crewe stop and introducing an MKC one might provide a better timed Virgin to London, as well as connecting MK to Runcorn and Liverpool. Crewe has three other Virgins to Euston already for a medium sized town, plus the LM service.

Northbound it leaves Euston at xx07, the path before the Chester service which calls. Southbound it passes Keynes at xx28, alas one path behind it is the service from Manchester via Crewe, so that's a non-starter.

Edit - I see you said vice Crewe. Southbound that might work but I'm not sure how keen Virgin would be to drop the call.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes, to an extent that's what exists now and that's probably the best way of doing it. I wouldn't be against a rejig of the VT service proposed above, but I wouldn't favour culling Glasgow-Birmingham direct via Preston altogether, it wouldn't work and would be rather unpopular. Instead I'd focus on writing the TPE Manchester and VT Birmingham timetables so as best to serve the flows needed, instead of doing it purely on alterations and balance. That way Glasgow keeps some of its Birmingham trains, Edinburgh gets perhaps a fairer deal, and Manchester services are utilised as best they can be, rather than just plugging gaps.

The problem with the route, as discussed in the WCML RUS, is that the traffic mix means that fast passenger trains have to be flighted north of Crewe.
This is to fit in freight and stoppers on various sections as the route is predominantly 2-track.
Currently, the Glasgow directs go first, then the "via Birmingham"s, then TPE, all witin 15 minutes or so from Preston, then the stoppers and freight.
That prevents a more balanced passenger service through the hour.
More 775m freight loops are needed before the timetable can be improved.
The ECML has far less freight and doesn't suffer in the same way.
Very little of the WCRM £8 billion went on improving WCML capacity north of Preston - in fact 125mph running probably reduced it.
But then, using single class 66s on container/coal trains over the fells doesn't help either.

 

[83G/84D]

Perhaps the Op should try the XC service between the South West & north. This is regularly formed of a 4 or 5 car Voyager (except when a HST is provided).

Overcrowding for large parts of the journey is the norm not the exception. Having travelled from Edinburgh to Exeter a couple of weeks ago on a Monday I can say that the train was very crowded between York and Gloucester even though it was 2 voyagers coupled. The catering trolley struggled to get through and it was standing room only. 1st class was full as well!

 

[387star]

Perhaps the Op should try the XC service between the South West & north. This is regularly formed of a 4 or 5 car Voyager (except when a HST is provided).

Overcrowding for large parts of the journey is the norm not the exception. Having travelled from Edinburgh to Exeter a couple of weeks ago on a Monday I can say that the train was very crowded between York and Gloucester even though it was 2 voyagers coupled. The catering trolley struggled to get through and it was standing room only. 1st class was full as well!

Is there a guard in each part of the train and a trolley in each part?

 

[yorksrob]

The problem with the route, as discussed in the WCML RUS, is that the traffic mix means that fast passenger trains have to be flighted north of Crewe.
This is to fit in freight and stoppers on various sections as the route is predominantly 2-track.
Currently, the Glasgow directs go first, then the "via Birmingham"s, then TPE, all witin 15 minutes or so from Preston, then the stoppers and freight.
That prevents a more balanced passenger service through the hour.
More 775m freight loops are needed before the timetable can be improved.
The ECML has far less freight and doesn't suffer in the same way.
Very little of the WCRM £8 billion went on improving WCML capacity north of Preston - in fact 125mph running probably reduced it.
But then, using single class 66s on container/coal trains over the fells doesn't help either.

Couldn't they send more of the freight via Appleby to free up paths ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Couldn't they send more of the freight via Appleby to free up paths ?

The freight TOCs want fast paths too, certainly for containers.
Coal could possibly go via the S&C, but Hunterston-Warrington (-Fiddlers Ferry) is a very busy operation.
Some of the trains run the whole length of the north WCML, running first via Glasgow rather than Dumfries.

 

[83G/84D]

Is there a guard in each part of the train and a trolley in each part?

I think the guard was in one of the sets and the trolley in the other but can't be certain of that.

 

[All Line Rover]

In reply to the range of responses which have been elicited:

• I am surprised by the number of posters who prefer to take a slower through train from Milton Keynes than make a cross-platform change at Crewe.
  
• Prior to the December 2013 timetable change the service from Scotland arrived in Wolverhampton at xx:31 and the service to London departed Wolverhampton at xx:45. So it has always been possible to obtain cheaper Advance fares for journeys via Birmingham. This has only become more widely known because the slower through trains usually appear in journey planners without the need to specify travel via Birmingham.
  
• I don't agree with the poster who says that Crewe benefits from 4 VT services to/from Euston every hour, which Virgin Trains proudly claimed when the timetable was changed. The service via Birmingham is overtaken by at least two other direct VT services, and a third direct VT service is moments behind, in both directions. This applies to Warrington, Wigan and Preston also, which could not be realistically described as benefiting from two trains an hour to/from London Euston.
  
• If London Midland improved its provision between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, there would be no complaints if Virgin Trains made Wolverhampton pick-up only northbound and set-down only southbound, so that it could focus on customers travelling longer distances. The reality is that the removal of an hourly 9-car train on a busy route where other trains range in length from 2 cars to 5 cars is far from ideal. It also leaves a roughly 20 minute gap in service (northbound) on a route that otherwise has a metro-style frequently (every 3 to 7 minutes, northbound).

Finally, Edinburgh has long had insufficient capacity for journeys to/via Carlisle. A single 5-car Voyager every 2 hours was insufficient. Many posters have mentioned that crowding north of Crewe has reduced since the timetable change. This must surely refer to the Edinburgh services? Considering Glasgow has benefited from hourly Pendolino trains to/from London (via the Trent Valley) since December 2012, which have many cheap Advance fares north of Preston even on peak time trains that are extremely expensive south of Preston, surely the Glasgow to Birmingham trains weren't that crowded even as 5-car Voyagers? In which case, instead of three VT trains to/from Glasgow and one VT train to/from Edinburgh every two hours (which is what we have at present), why didn't VT maintain the existing Birmingham to Scotland service and divert one Trent Valley Pendolino train to Edinburgh every two hours, providing the additional capacity that is needed between Edinburgh and Carlisle and giving Edinburgh an even better service than it has today? The only Birmingham to Scotland trains which would still have needed strengthening would be the 16:20, 17:20 and 18:20 departures from Birmingham to Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

[*]I am surprised by the number of posters who prefer to take a slower through train from Milton Keynes than make a cross-platform change at Crewe.

Really? Normal passengers like direct trains. They don't like changing.

I didn't like changing because (a) northbound the connection was in my experience often missed or at least stressful due to delays, and (b) it was a 59 minute connection southbound on a Sunday, which is stupid.

This applies to Warrington, Wigan and Preston also, which could not be realistically described as benefiting from two trains an hour to/from London Euston.

You are completely ignoring the benefit of journeys from intermediate stations. Milton Keynes is getting bigger all the time and is becoming more of a significant non-commuter traffic source/sink all the time.

[*]If London Midland improved its provision between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, there would be no complaints if Virgin Trains made Wolverhampton pick-up only northbound and set-down only southbound, so that it could focus on customers travelling longer distances.

I agree this should be improved, but that isn't a reason VT should care about it per-se. I don't think u/s is really needed, but I equally don't think VT should have to consider local passengers from Wolverhampton-BHM-BHI, nor MKC-EUS, in their timetable planning, unless they happen to want to. They are not a local train operator.

Finally, Edinburgh has long had insufficient capacity for journeys to/via Carlisle. A single 5-car Voyager every 2 hours was insufficient. Many posters have mentioned that crowding north of Crewe has reduced since the timetable change. This must surely refer to the Edinburgh services?

IME both the Glasgows and Edinburghs were overcrowded pretty much at all times.

Considering Glasgow has benefited from hourly Pendolino trains to/from London (via the Trent Valley) since December 2012, which have many cheap Advance fares north of Preston even on peak time trains that are extremely expensive south of Preston, surely the Glasgow to Birmingham trains weren't that crowded even as 5-car Voyagers?

Once again, you are forgetting that London is not the only traffic source/sink on the WCML. There are huge numbers of intermediate journeys, chiefly involving MKC, Crewe, Preston and Lancaster but also other stations.

The only Birmingham to Scotland trains which would still have needed strengthening would be the 16:20, 17:20 and 18:20 departures from Birmingham to Scotland.

Disagree. I found them overcrowded at most times I tried to use them, certainly at weekends but also during the week.

I still don't see a massive negative to the changes, and many, many positives. Though if there are now a few overcrowded Brum trains there perhaps needs to be a small rediagramming to correct this.

 

[Envy123]

I may be reading too much into this but I see an implication that the railway should simply do away with walk-up tickets and only accept advance bookings.

That would inconvenience those passengers who just pick an interesting place on the departure boards, buy a ticket and decide to go there and explore.

I'm one of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would inconvenience those passengers who just pick an interesting place on the departure boards, buy a ticket and decide to go there and explore.

I'm one of them.

With compulsory reservations it doesn't mean you can't buy a ticket on the day, you can after all (at a price) rock up and buy an air ticket on the day at an airport if you really want. It just means when it's full, it's full.

 

[PR1Berske]

With compulsory reservations it doesn't mean you can't buy a ticket on the day, you can after all (at a price) rock up and buy an air ticket on the day at an airport if you really want. It just means when it's full, it's full.

But the end of "on the day" travel does inconvenience (or even exclude) the low paid , those on a fixed income, and unemployed. It's a real problem to support the end of "on the day" if you can't tackle how to avoid making an already expensive mode of transport much worse.

 

[andrewkeith5]

With compulsory reservations it doesn't mean you can't buy a ticket on the day, you can after all (at a price) rock up and buy an air ticket on the day at an airport if you really want. It just means when it's full, it's full.

I do wonder if/when TOCs will realise that trains are not aeroplanes and cannot be treated in the same way.

 

[JamesRowden]

From my only experience, on a Friday in early December 2011, the 16:52 Virgin Trains Voyager from Edinburgh to Birmingham was almost deserted inside all the way from Carlisle 18:08 (where I got on) to Wolverhampton 20:39 (where I got off). I think that there were only two other people in the same carriage as me.

But the 16:40 Pedonlino from Glasgow Central to Euston (not via Birmingham) was reasonably well used but I did get two seats to myself.

Is the 16:52 Edinburgh to Euston via Birmingham as underused on its nothern section as I observed its predecessor to be?

 

[Hadders]

With compulsory reservations it doesn't mean you can't buy a ticket on the day, you can after all (at a price) rock up and buy an air ticket on the day at an airport if you really want. It just means when it's full, it's full.

This would be a bad move, in my opinion. I agree that standing isn't desirable but at least you have the choice of whether to travel or not.

At present you can go to a station and buy a ticket to travel anywhere and get on the train. Ok, you might have to stand if it's busy but at least you can decide whether or not to travel.

If reservations became compulsory you might not be able to make a long distance journey for several days if there were no seats available.

Be careful what you wish for...

 

[DarloRich]

Much as it pains me to agree ( ) i do agree with what Neil Williams has set out in post #52.

The op seems to overlook the fact that most normal's don't want to change and that despite being slower the train via Birmingham is often cheaper and offers a wider selection of direct journey opportunities.

Anyone with any experience of working with normals will know people don't really value speed if it means getting off the train. They want to get on and stay on!

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the end of "on the day" travel does inconvenience (or even exclude) the low paid , those on a fixed income, and unemployed. It's a real problem to support the end of "on the day" if you can't tackle how to avoid making an already expensive mode of transport much worse.

I would suggest that "on the day" travel is already inaccessible to people in those positions anyway as the fares are too high. Those economic groups will mostly be using Advances or even very cheap advance booked coach fares.

You have time, *or* you have money...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If reservations became compulsory you might not be able to make a long distance journey for several days if there were no seats available.

Be careful what you wish for...

I don't "wish for" compulsory reservations - I think on balance I have a 50-50 view on the concept as it has both significant benefits and significant downsides. I was merely debunking a myth about them.

What I would like to see, though, is the ability to take a reservation immediately before the time of travel or even on boarding, which would be done by stopping placing reservations and instead having marked reserved and unreserved coaches/areas on IC type trains. Want a seat in a reserved coach? Get your phone out and grab one, or go to a machine by the doors, say, or grab one from the TVM as you purchase your ticket. Then enjoy the benefits of no boarding scrum while retaining the flexibility of walk-up travel. Prefer jumping on at the last minute and can't be bothered with the technology? Take a seat in coaches F or U (on Pendolinos), for example, and you know it isn't reserved and won't become reserved along the way.

But that's for another thread I think - specifically the XC TMR one.